Never read the site, or even heard of it until a month or so ago.

So... ok.

Will Leitch is plural?

Editors are plural, same as monarchs. Grammar doesn't have to make sense!

I bet this works out just as well as Wonkette without Cox.

We were just telling our wife that we don't care too much.

Editors are plural, same as monarchs.

There's the royal we, the editorial we & the schizoid we. All of which can be interchangeable, I suppose, depending on which one of us is using it.

I would like to read a timeline on the usage/purpose of the royal we. We have always hated it.

Isn't there also a gollum we?

I think Mark Twain said that the only persons who should refer to themselves as "We" were people with tapeworms.

we, pron.

2. Used by a single person to denote himself:

a. by a sovereign or ruler. Often defined by the name or title added.
Beowulf 958 Beowulf maelode..: We æt ellenweorc..feohtan fremedon. c1425 Eng. Conq. Irel. (1896) 6 We, dermot, prince of leynester. 1436 HEN. VI in Rep. Hist. MSS. Comm. Var. Coll. IV. 199 We forse alle the gret discoragyng and discomfort that mygte growe to oure trwe sugectis. 1482 in Eng. Hist. Rev. (1910) XXV. 122 We Elizabeth abbas of e Monastere of Syon..wylle and ordeyne that [etc.]. 1603 JAS. I in Rymer Fdera (1705) XVI. 538 Wee, Myndinge of our Royall and absolute Power to Us commytted, to visitt [etc.]. 1613 SHAKES. Hen. VIII, II. iv. 71 Sir, I am about to weepe; but thinking that We are a Queene [etc.]. 1642 CHAS. I in Clarendon Hist. Reb. v. §20 In plain English, it is to take away the freedom of our vote; which were we but a subject were high injustice; but being your king, we leave all the world to judge what it is. 1835 LYTTON Rienzi IV. vii, Noticed you the we the style royal? 1850 WISEMAN Pastoral 7 Oct., In that same Consistory we were enabled ourselves to ask for the Archiepiscopal Pallium, for our new See of Westminster. 1872 TENNYSON Gareth & Lynette 362 But Arthur, ‘We sit King, to help the wrong'd Thro' all our realm’.

b. by a speaker or writer, in order to secure an impersonal style and tone, or to avoid the obtrusive repetition of ‘I’.
Regularly so used in editorial and unsigned articles in newspapers and other periodicals, where the writer is understood to be supported in his opinions and statements by the editorial staff collectively.
c893 ÆLFRED Oros. I. i. §11 Nu hæbbe we scortlice esæd ymbe Asia londemæro. c1000 ÆLFRIC Hom. I. 556 We mihton as halan rædinge menifealdlicor trahtnian. a1300 Cursor M. 265 Now o is proloug wil we blin. 1513 BRADSHAW St. Werburge I. 295 The second sone of Penda, we meane kynge Wulfere. 1589 PUTTENHAM Eng. Poesie I. xix. (Arb.) 56 We our selues who compiled this treatise. 1610 HEALEY St. Aug. Citie of God III. xviii. 133 Should we particularize, wee should become a direct Historiographer. 1807 COPLESTON Advice to Yng. Reviewer 1 There is a mysterious authority in the plural we, which no single name, whatever may be its reputation, can acquire. 1836 DICKENS Sk. Boz, Criminal Courts, We shall never forget the mingled feelings of awe and respect with which we used to gaze on the exterior of Newgate in our schoolboy days. 1860 Leader 11 Feb., The volume that we have now before us. 1879 T. P. O'CONNOR Beaconsfield xiv. 577 In this official report [of a speech] the vain-glorious and significant ‘I’ is toned down to the softer and less candid ‘we’.

c. Hence jocularly as quasi-n.: The editor of a periodical, or a contributor who uses this style; the periodical itself.
1853 R. S. SURTEES Sponge's Sp. Tour ix, It reached the ears of the great Mr. Seedeyman, the mighty we of the country, as he sat in his den penning his ‘stunners’ for his market-day Mercury. 1866 Chamb. Jrnl. 15 Dec. 788/2 Not only was I myself overwhelmed by these accounts of foreign travel, when I was a We, but I noticed [etc.]. 1902 Monthly Rev. Aug. 124 Yet the two great ‘Wes’ of the eighteenth century, the ‘Monthly’ and the ‘Critical’ played no unimportant part in the literary education of our great~grandparents.

b. by a speaker or writer, in order to secure an impersonal style and tone, or to avoid the obtrusive repetition of ‘I’.
Regularly so used in editorial and unsigned articles in newspapers and other periodicals, where the writer is understood to be supported in his opinions and statements by the editorial staff collectively.

This works in the first paragraph in the intro, when he's discussing the formation of the site. It's when Leitch is announcing his departure from Deadspin (a singular activity), that its use becomes ridiculous.

I bet this works out just as well as Wonkette without Cox.

You mean it's going to get better?

and hilarious.

Regardless of what you think of his use of "we," Leitch is a good writer and a reasonable individual (though not this Titan of New Media and Voice of a New Generation he's made out to be). His voice makes Deadspin lighthearted and enjoyable. The lowest common denominator types he's leaving the site to, however, will make it unreadable.

OED sighting. Awesome. Thanks, B. Selig.

His voice makes Deadspin lighthearted and enjoyable. The lowest common denominator types he's leaving the site to, however, will make it unreadable.

This was my reaction as well. Leitch carried the only shred of integrity and decency the site had. I am actually pleased by this news, because I can now avoid Deadspin entirely without feeling like I might be missing something.

Buzz Bissinger must be really pissed he's being phased out while this little #### is going mainstream.

His work for the New York Times and other outlets -- and even parts of his book -- were much better than most of what he did on Deadspin. For the last year or so there has been a palpable sense that he knows that he is above his material (which he is).

Good luck to him going forward. I think there's a really good sportswriter in there ready to write for grownups.

Someone fill me in here. Did Leitch create Deadspin, meaning he's responsible for any profit he makes from it, and then, presumably, he pays his writers (not sure if they're blogging for free or not)? Since he's leaving, is he still profiting from Deadspin, or is he going to sell it, or what?

Probably none of my business, but I'm just curious.

Leitch was Deadspin's first editor, but it is owned by Nick Denton's Gawker Media. I seem to recall that he might have had some role in pitching a sports arm of Gawker, but he basically had to audition for the job. There may have ultimately been a kicker or two in there for Leitch, but if he follows the model of all of the other Gawker editors (Gawker, Wonkette, Jezebel, etc.) he has basically been a paid employee all of this time.

His work for the New York Times and other outlets -- and even parts of his book -- were much better than most of what he did on Deadspin.

I would've expected the first Deadspin-spawned book to be I'd Hit It: A Visual Guide To Jocks' Wives and Girlfriends.

"You mean it's going to get better?"

Yeah, um, not so much.

I think Mark Twain said that the only persons who should refer to themselves as "We" were people with tapeworms.

What about people who are possessed? I know the biblical quote is "My name is Legion, for we are many," but I'm sorry -- that just doesn't read right.

Good luck to him going forward.

Not picking on Craig, but when the hell did "going forward" become so popular? And how & why? What the hell does it really mean ? Isn't "going forward" usually implied in any such comment? Unless you're a time traveler, would you ever say, "Good luck to him five weeks ago?" Hell, it's even worse than "currently," which is hardly ever really needed. ("He is currently the starting second baseman." Doesn't "is" imply quite sufficiently that we're talking about the present, dammit, not the past or future or some some heretofore undiscovered additional dimension of time?)

Things that drive editors nuts ...

It's dreadful businesspeak, of which I am an unfortunate victim and occasional user. Going forward, I hope to employ best practices to make its elimination a priority one action item. I think I can do it too, at least if I think outside the box and stop worrying about who moved my cheese.

As I said, Craig, nothing personal, & if I didn't see it all the damned time I wouldn't have said anything. While I'm an editor, I actually work in (a) a PR department in (b) the headquarters of a nonprofit whose members pretend they're military, on (c) an Air Force base,, so I come up against all sorts of empty phraseology all day long.

If I ever encounter the verb "palletize" (for "place on a pallet") again, I won't be responsible for my actions.

Going forward is not used nearly as much and is not nearly as annoying as "That said..."

It's dreadful businesspeak, of which I am an unfortunate victim and occasional user. Going forward, I hope to employ best practices to make its elimination a priority one action item. I think I can do it too, at least if I think outside the box and stop worrying about who moved my cheese.

That would be a welcome paradigm shift.

I hate the phrases "going forward" and "let's work backward from this." Anything that is sideways, however, I do approve of.

Just today I heard the phrase "deadspin.com" in a high-powered meeting at work for the first time. 'twas a bit of a surprise.

Was it followed by a stream of vile curses?

I'm far from a Deadspin fan, but God Save The Fan was good, man. At some point when I get a newer computer that actually doesn't freak out when I try to use Flash or Java, I have to watch that Bissinger meltdown.

I hate "reach base safely." As in, "Pujols has reached base safely in 20 straight games!" Doesn't "reach base" ensure that he is safe? If you are not safe, you don't reach base, right? Isn't that how baseball works?

"Reach base safely" precludes ROE and FC.

I realize that, but even on a ROE you are safe, aren't you? You aren't out. And on an FC you aren't out either, the other dude is. There has to be a better way of putting it.

Some people type casually, conversationally. It's not a particularly big deal.

I agree with #13 and #16. The other writers at Deadspin are much more vulgar. Leitch is a good writer, and is generally positive about sports, especially baseball.

If my dad read this site, he'd post about how he hates the term "hit batsman."

It's a batter, for ####'s sake. When else do we use the term batsman?

And then he'd repeat those two sentences about fifty times before someone would tell him that we get the point and to shut the #### up.

"Going forward" has been around so long it barely registers anymore.

My favorite is when politicians (like McCain in Louisiana) use it in combinations such as "we have to move forward, not backward." I always want to add, in the spirit of Kodos, "and always twirling, twirling..."

Why a batsman though? No one says that! It's not a batsman! Say batter for crying out loud. I mean, what is this, the 1800s? Batsman? Really? Really? Who was he hit by? The ball hurler on the hill of dirt? Batsman--it's just ridiculous, you know what I mean? (/Justin's dad)

I think I can do it too, at least if I think outside the box and stop worrying about who moved my cheese.

You need to rightsize your vocabulary.

Synergy!

I've always read "going forward" as specifically emphasizing a change in position. For example, "I wish him luck going forward" is different than "I wish him luck" in that it adds the information that up until this point, I might not have cared so much about his luck, but now I do.

I use "That said" all the time because it is less clumsy than saying "I know what I'm about to say doesn't exactly follow the rules I just set, but bear with me while I explain how these two thoughts work together in harmony."

And why "shortstop?" There's nothing about the position that makes being unusual in height an advantage in any way. And he plays deeper than several other fielders, so it's not as though he stops anything short (in fact, on many plays, the third baseman gets deference on balls in front of the shortstop). And it seems to me that second base is the shortstop's domain as much, if not more, than it is the second baseman's. If we're going to be fixing terms, I think we need to start here.

CS, your use of "that said" is admirable, but so many misuse and overuse the phrase that it drives me nuts.

That said, you'll be nuts going forward.

"Reach base safely" precludes ROE and FC.

That's what I thought, too, until I heard on a broadcast that somebody's streak of reaching safely was extended by reaching on an error.

If we're going to be fixing terms, I think we need to start here.

That's no better than fifth on the list.

4. A "bullpen by committee" describes any bullpen.

3. What's usually called a "ground-rule double" is an event that is not dependent on the ground rules.

2. The foul pole and foul lines are fair.

1. The word "cup" describes something you definitely do not want to drink from.

I'm still kind of annoyed that Rob Neyer used the word "greensward" like six years ago. I should probably let it go.

Hazel Mae on the NESN highlights show says "the local 9" about 3-5 times per broadcast. It's maddening.

Now, now... if we can all just leverage our core competencies by proactively thinking out of the box, we'll bring about opportunities for excellence going forward.

Now, now... if we can all just leverage our core competencies by proactively thinking out of the box, we'll bring about opportunities for excellence going forward.

Uh... So's your mom?

Hazel Mae on the NESN highlights show says "the local 9" about 3-5 times per broadcast. It's maddening.

Your long northeastern nightmare is almost over.

Leverage this, greensward.

Leverage this.

This thread just wouldn't be as fitting a tribute to Deadspin if it didn't have two people tell the same joke from formula at the same time.

What a sell out -- so much for the revolution against MSM. Leitch just jumped into bed with them. Every man has his price, Will. Yours was pretty low.